Our approved summary
The ad said customers saved money compared to usual prices but did not prove those prices were regularly charged so the savings claim was misleading (CAP 3.1, 3.7, 3.17).
Upheld by the ASA. Ruling published by the ASA on .
The ad said customers saved money compared to usual prices but did not prove those prices were regularly charged so the savings claim was misleading (CAP 3.1, 3.7, 3.17).
What to do next
More ASA rulings explained
- The ads compared services with named competitors without enough clear information to verify the claims, so the comparisons were misleading and unverifiable (CAP 3.1, 3.7, 3.34).
- The ad said wood burners and open fires caused more particle pollution near four schools but there was no proof to back this up so it was misleading (CAP 3.1, 3.7).
Official ruling
The official ruling is the definitive version. Mystery Slopper is not affiliated with the ASA.